TheBlackHand said:Kinda hard to prove you're NOT renting an apartment for " tourist purposes " if you're on a " tourist visa ".
That's not how the law works, or is interpreted. It has to be in an area apt for tourism. Apparently, there are court cases that confirm that Capital is not such a place. The exemption is designed for tourist rentals in areas like Mar del Plata, not for short term leases in the city.
TheBlackHand said:And the only way this will stop is by simply having the contracts written in pesos. If a property owner wants $ 500 usd per month and the tenant doesn't want to pay in dollars the property owner should simply have the contract written for $ 3000 pesos instead. No exchange rate. End of story.
Right, but this landlord, like many others, is trying to offer a contract that is not permitted by the law. Why should he be allowed to? If he doesn't like the terms of his investment (this law has been on the books for a long time) then he should sell up and find some other "freer" investment that doesn't involve residential rentals.
el_expatriado said:The laws here for owners are a joke. What do you expect an owner of an apartment to do? Sign a two year contract in pesos and not adjust for inflation? At the end of the two years they'd be using those pesos for toilet paper because that's all it would be good for.
Sorry, but indexing is necessary as long as there is double digit inflation.
Doesn't matter what you think though, it's not lawful. The trick in two year contracts is that they write the rent as, for example, $6000 pesos per month, with the first year at $4000 as a "discount".
Lets also be clear, we're talking about what amounts to monthly indexing here. You have no idea what your housing expense will be from one month to the next, based on an index (the parallel dollar rate) that is based on largely on hysteria and fear mongering.
If the rules don't work for you, don't invest in residential rental property in Argentina or form a lobby group to try and convince everyone that the law should be changed. Don't pretend that clauses like this are legally enforceable.